Hacker News Reader

Comment by danjayh | Hacker News Reader

I think public transit would only be viable in dense urban cores. In other areas, if the city desires to provide transportation assistance, I think it's probably more efficient to provide other forms of transportation to the working poor (who are typically the primary users of public transit in midsized cities). Here in Grand Rapids, the busses are so lightly used that it would probably be cheaper for the city to hand out Uber or Lyft credits for the people that are now using the busses (and it'd provide a better user experience too).

View on HN

Can one of the people downvoting this into oblivion please explain? If a midsized city with little congestion could provide subsidized point-to-point transit for those who need it at a comparable cost to operating a bus system, what is the possible downside? This would be hugely beneficial to the people actually using the service, since they get all the time back that would have otherwise been spent waiting on transit services.

Don't you think this is relying a bit too much on private corporation like Uber and Lyft? What if they shut down, or leave the city? How long would it take to reorganize public transport?

Also, uber and Lyft would get to decide the prices, that could cost much more to the city.

I think a public transport has to be public, ie publicly owned.

Why does it have to be publicly owned? For example, all of London buses are privately owned, but the bus companies are contracted to operate routes and the city sets the fares, colour scheme etc so that they all look the same.

You're right, that's an other option. But can you say that it is really private if the city sets the price, and the routes?

And wouldn't it be better to have the same thing but public (so that benefits are used to actually improve the service, and not pay dividends)?

There won’t be Uber and Lyft if there aren’t already a road network and a massive pool of people who know how to drive

Reply on news.ycombinator.com